Passy777
Interesting post; Unless I am missing something, etrang, you and me are saying pretty much the same thing, in different words.
I have used Heinrich as well,
AFAIK the airline industry often uses the 'Swiss Cheese' model of Prof. James Reason of Manchester in a similar way.
I would suggest that applying those principles to aviation, four point seatbelts, smoke hoods etc could be deemed as personal protective equipment and as such are the last resort as they would be protecting the pax that is already exposed to the hazard/risk.
I would use the words 'mitigation of impact risk response' to describe these pieces of equipment, as opposed to 'mitigation of probability risk response', which says prevention is better than the cure.
In terms of physical design, are you citing Poka Yoke and Shingo ? I ask, because I would be very interested if you have an alternate reference.
My only slight query on your list would be White Star Lines, where I believe that they did identify and assess the risk event that sank the Titanic, but due to lack of experience with the new fangled watertight compartments and this particular failure mode (many small hull penetrations over a considerable distance) their assumptions proved tragically flawed; Perhaps you mean the lifeboat capacity, though.